()

Well, the UN admitted Saddam had WMDs; http://www.alphapatriot.com/home/arc...am_had_wmd.php
The New York Times said he had WMD capabilities;
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...ities&only=yes
And several anti war groups said so;
http://againstcommies009.blogspot.co...idence-of.html

After the invasion, occupation forces found no unconventional arms, and C.I.A. inspectors concluded that the effort had been largely abandoned after the Persian Gulf war in 1991.

()

Source #1 is a far right website quoting a far right thinktank saying that Saddam had WMDs and that they'd been shipped out of the country. And if you read between the lines, they're blurring the distinctions between WMD and other weapons - how would a WMD have a UN inspection tag on it?

As for the other two; capability for building WMDs does not a WMD make. Operative sentence: "Some of which could be used for both military and civilian applications". Interesting how you didn't actually link to the NYTimes article, but instead to a blog that had selectively quoted it.


EDIT: Even if Saddam did have WMDs, there was no justification for invading Iraq without the support of the Security Council.

You can BLAH BLAH all you like about Women's Rights but I had already stated that it was the borderline example in that list. And I suggest you take your own advice and stop believing that your worldview is the only legitimate one.

And just for a clarification: I don't hate the United States. I spent nine months there a few years back and have a bunch of friends that live there. What's more, I'm intending to go back to travel, study and maybe even work. But that doesn't mean that I'll sit back and forgive every mistake they make, just as I'll freely criticise the Australian government (for doing all of the above, among other things) and any other nation that's buggering up the world (i.e. all of them).